A bizarre twist on morality (abortion)

[hmkpoker]

Premise 1: Christianity is true, and God, Heaven, Hell and Jesus are real.
Premise 2: Moral is the action that does the most good at the cost of the least bad.
Premise 3: Aborted or miscarried children go to Heaven (this seems to be popular consensus)

A certain woman understands these premises. One day, she has an accidental pregnancy. She is very worried about the fact that there is a good chance that her child will not choose Christ (note that most people in this world are non-Christian). She aborts the child and it goes to Heaven.

She then decides to have a series of pregnancies, and abort each one. Each time, a new soul goes to Heaven. She continues doing this, under the belief that what she is doing is in the best interest of the unborn child (after all, Heaven is infinitely better than Earth.)

Is there anything wrong with this action?

hiya hmkpoker,

If your premises are true, of course not.

From my viewpoint each one of them is wrong, so no conclusion is possible.

[Double Down]

In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[ QUOTE ]
In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no, only to be on the safe side. She doesn't want to take a chance that those kids turn out to be rebels or worse atheists.

To leave all humour out of it, this obviously (I hope) unacceptable conclusion based on a seemingly logical argument should strongly indicate that a review of the premises may be in order. By this I am repeating what I said in an earlier post which seems to be conveniently ignored. I can only assume that the lack of willingness to have a dialogue is based on a fear (certainly palpable) and its attendant insecurity.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no, only to be on the safe side. She doesn't want to take a chance that those kids turn out to be rebels or worse atheists.

To leave all humour out of it, this obviously (I hope) unacceptable conclusion based on a seemingly logical argument should strongly indicate that a review of the premises may be in order. By this I am repeating what I said in an earlier post which seems to be conveniently ignored. I can only assume that the lack of willingness to have a dialogue is based on a fear (certainly palpable) and its attendant insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Review the premises then.

(Keep in mind that I requested earlier that premise 2 be omitted, as it is unnecessary)

[ QUOTE ]
Cool. Review the premises then.

(Keep in mind that I requested earlier that premise 2 be omitted, as it is unnecessary)

[/ QUOTE ]

Eliminate Premise 1, replace with "there is no omnipotent god" and most, if not all, contradictions that are manifested in religions that do propose an omnipotent god, dissapear. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It has to do with the irreconcilibity of omnipotence, goodness and the existence of evil.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guarantees it. It is strictly +EV

Only thing I can see wrong with it (following the premises you have outlined) is that she might get put in a position where she can't abort it.

What your twist boils down to is that having children is immoral if you follow a christian belief: as conceiving and giving birth to children increases their chance of going to hell infinitely (if they hadn't been conceived they couldn't go to hell), having children is therefore immoral.

Premise #1 and Premise #2 are incompatible.

[hmkpoker]

hmmm...

Debatable, but also superfluous. I'll drop #2 and fix it.